MacDuff & MacDuff (No 2)

In *MacDuff & MacDuff (No 2)*, Rees J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application for injunctions to preserve marital assets and for an interim property distribution. The dispute arose in the context of family law proceedings where the wife sought to prevent the husband from dissipating marital assets.

The court was required to determine whether there was a sufficient risk of the husband dissipating marital assets, a question that involved assessing the evidence presented by the wife, even if untested. Additionally, the court considered the appropriateness of an interim property distribution to cover the tax liabilities of both parties.

Rees J applied the principles established in *M v DB* (1996) 36 Fam LR 454, which clarifies that the court's power to grant injunctions under s 114(3) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) is broad, requiring an overall assessment of factors to determine what is just and convenient. The court noted that the existence of a real risk of disposal of property to defeat an order is a key consideration, and while evidence of intention or a scheme to dissipate assets is relevant, it is one factor among others contributing to the objective risk. The judge found a sufficient risk based on the wife's uncontradicted evidence that the husband had removed a significant sum from joint accounts, removed her as a beneficiary of the family trust, and made threats to dissipate assets, including statements about remortgaging the house and putting the money back into the company.

Consequently, the court varied prior orders made on 3 April 2012. The variation permitted the husband to deal with the credit bank account of his business, even if the company's bank balance fell below $5 million, while also making orders for an interim distribution to address both parties' tax liabilities.